Changes the wallet PIN, must be 5 digits, e.g. 12345
Changes the wallet PIN, must be 5 digits, e.g. 12345 @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param wallet_fk: The wallet_fk provided by /access/login @param new_pin: The new PIN, but be 5 numeric digits
@return: a json object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| new_pin | Yes | ||
| wallet_fk | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required, whether an existing PIN or confirmation is needed, or what the response contains beyond 'a json object'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The opening sentence is repeated twice, and the raw @param/@return docstring formatting is carried through verbatim. This is wasted space that makes the definition harder to scan, though the parameter block itself is compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter coverage is adequate but behavioral context is missing. The description should say more about auth requirements and the effect of the change to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all four parameters and their provenance (token and wallet_fk come from /access/login). The 5-digit numeric constraint on new_pin is a useful addition, though types are still not stated in prose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Changes the wallet PIN') and adds a format constraint, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool, and the purpose sentence is duplicated verbatim, which weakens the signal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any precondition beyond the parameter list. The agent is left to infer that this is the PIN-reset path rather than, say, a login or recovery flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.